By Bruce Campbell and Seth Klein

Is minority government good for Canada? Former Conservative pollster
Allan Gregg would have us believe in his Strategic Counsel poll this
week that 55% of Canadians (and 64% of Quebecers) think a Harper
majority would be good for the country.

One wonders what Canadians? response would have been if the question had
been prefaced with the statement that a Harper majority would tear up a
major international treaty obligation–the Kyoto Accord; or that it
would put Canada?s support for George Bush?s Missile Defense program
back on the table.

Gregg?s poll bolsters the economic elite?s view that minorities produce
gridlock and instability, and that only ?strong? majority governments
can produce meaningful change. Yet while majority governments have been
very successful in advancing elite policy priorities, this convenient
myth masks the reality that minority governments have historically (and
most recently) produced important change that most Canadians support.

Canadians need to recall their recent experience with majority
governments. Two full decades of back-to-back majorities under
successive Conservative (1984?1993) and Liberal (1993?2004) governments
have delivered largely on the demands of corporate Canada, not the
broader electorate. For Canadian citizens, election promises seemed to
vaporize. Instead, these majorities delivered:
€ massive corporate tax cuts;
€ the end of universal benefits for children;
€ repeated attacks on Old Age Security benefits;
€ deep cuts for health, education, and social assistance;
€ removal of federal support for affordable housing;
€ gutting of unemployment insurance;
€ offloading of programs such as training and welfare to the
provinces;
€ introduction and entrenchment of both NAFTA and the GST;
€ closer harmonization to U.S. standards and regulations in areas
such as health and the environment; and closer integration on
intelligence and military security.

And the list goes on. None of these measures were election issues, nor
were they priorities for the majority of Canadians. They serve as an
important reminder that we should be careful what we wish for, and that
many of the most significant (and harmful) things done by majority
governments never appeared in their election platforms.

In contrast, the Pearson minority governments of the 1960s brought in
far reaching reforms greatly valued by Canadians to this day, including
the Canada Pension Plan, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Canada
Student Loan program, increased federal transfers to the provinces, and
Canada?s most cherished social program ?? Medicare.

In 2004, the Liberals campaigned on commitments to affordable housing,
training, student assistance, the environment and foreign aid. But it
was only because they were reduced to a minority and forced to make
compromises with the NDP that they were held accountable for these
promises. If they?d had their way, the Liberals would have replaced
these promises with more tax cuts for big business.

Under a Liberal majority, Canada would almost certainly have signed on
to the US Missile Defense program, over the opposition of the vast
majority of Canadians. With a majority, it is doubtful the Liberals
would have finally moved forward on their promise (overdue by 12 years)
to bring in a national child care program, or achieved their landmark
Aboriginal agreement.

Many Canadians want to punish the Liberals for the sponsorship scandal.
But is handing a majority to another party ?? and giving it carte
blanche to implement its own, largely unknown, agenda ?? the answer? We
don?t believe so. There are far too many issues that have gone
un-debated in this election.

Under a Harper majority, what will happen to the CBC? Will we see a
radical decentralization of taxation powers to the provinces? Might they
re-open the issue of privatizing the CPP? Will we see cuts to core
social programs like EI or seniors benefits? We don?t know, and we
shouldn?t find out the hard way.

The Conservative plan has not been fully costed (for example, it does
not spell out how it would redress the so-called fiscal imbalance with
the provinces). Thus, while we know what Harper says he will spend more
on, we do not know what he may cut or privatize.

While far from perfect, the last minority parliament made modest
progress in reversing the damage to our public programs. This is what
most people wanted and what they voted for.

One reason Canadians feel disenchanted with politics is that parties run
on one thing (usually centre-left platforms with broad appeal), and then
when handed a majority, deliver something very different. Minority
governments, on the other hand, serve to check this impunity. Another
minority would force whoever forms government to listen to the
representatives elected by the majority of Canadians (rather than
influential lobbyists), and keep them from straying too far from core
Canadian values.

/Bruce Campbell is the Executive Director of the Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives. Seth Klein is the BC Director of the CCPA. The CCPA
recently published *Minority Report: a Report Card on the 2004-05
Minority Government* (available at http://www.policyalternatives.ca).
/
–
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
410-75 Albert Street, Ottawa ON K1P 5E7
tel: 613-563-1341 fax: 613-233-1458

http://www.policyalternatives.ca

caw567